19861028 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The appellant failed to prove his claim as there was credible and abundant evidence, including witnesses to the payment, that he sold the house to the respondent.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19861028 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Lila Mwivinjuma Gogo; Respondent: Omari Korongo
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 28 October 1986
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sale of Immovable Property, Burden of Proof, Evidence Assessment
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lila Mwivinjuma Gogo
Appellant
Omari Korongo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant sold the house to the respondent
- 2 Whether the appellant is entitled to reclaim the house
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to prove his claim as there was credible and abundant evidence, including witnesses to the payment, that he sold the house to the respondent.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IlT TBE HIGH COURT OF TANZAN.IA ·• · AT D1U?. ES SALAAM •' . •(PC) CIVTI, .~J?PJ:i:AL NO. 71 OF 1905 (Frrn:i. the decision of tho District Court of Ba.gamoyo gt Das::i.in.0yo (Orig:Lnal Civil Case H0 .ll/G5 of Kiwangwa PrimD.ry Court)1 LILA r,r:rn-JJlJ1\1i, GOGO •••••••••••••• 0 0 ••• 0 •••• 0 ••• 0 •••••• APFELLANT versus 0Idi\l1I i~onoNoo ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• RESPONDENT JlJ.DGEl'IIENT Mt\ DL\ , J,• The appellnnt, Liln IvivvinjurMJ,, sued the respondent, Omnri Korongo, at the Ki1i7.:mc,1wa 11rimnry court, for a. house. The suit was dismissed. Tho np:i;,olla.nt's appeal to the district court at '.&.gOliloyo W.;tG lUGmiac<.,d, hence ·th:i.s ,.second appeal. The appella.nt 1 s evidence in the trial court was that he had allo• wed the respondent to stay in the house but there wns evidence which the lower courts i.Jolfovoc.1 th~t the nppclla.nt had in fact sold the house to tho rusvonGent for Ghs.500/"• The evidence that the appe. llant sold tho b.ouse r;~·.o r;ivcn by thu respondent's son, Junia and three wi'bncissoB, Om~ri :i.bj::1.bu, Mrisho P.anadha.ni and Aweso Abed Rajabu. All these wi tner;scc wcru 1,rosent when tho respondent pa.id the money to the o.ppello.nt. So although the appollant was alleging he did not sell the house, thoro ri:,.s nbunclcmt believable evidence to prove that he infnct said it. Thero was also evidence that thu rcsponclent lived :in the house for ten yoars am1. tho appellant did not do ll.nything to claim the hOil.S\ In view of the. t silence nru:! tho f,:.i.ct th.at three witnesses saw the responctent pa.yin:'t money for the house there could be no doubt that I the amJellant foiled to 0str.i.blish his claim for the house. The appe.. llant mmy havo allov,oc.1 the respondent to use tho hous(;l tor a few months, but lr.1·~el~ it wr:is asreed that the respondent should 1my· the house 1and evidence proved that the respondent in faot bought that houee, I paid money in the presence of witnesses, .Tho appellant himse:U oonoodocl that in or:!.r:.1inci.l co.se 1-J 0 • 5 of 198,t of Kiwangwo. primary court when e;iVinB ovic.1onoe :.,.fJi;o:c the 1•0,.:ipondent was charsec1 with criminal trespo.se, Tho ~pJ?Ollc.nt j_s rccortlod ::,.s say:u1.g that he sold the house to tho respondent. Lilto tho ·two 101':ul' courts, I nm satisfied that the appellant sold the house to the ;,~00pondent an<l both lower courts properly f'ound . ,, . ,, -~ ~ that the house·b0long::: to tho respondent. The appellant :failed to prove his co.se. "'· The appeal is dismissed with costs.~ w~ , ., ._ ,. /\ (w.J.1V1',rnA) JUDGE. Dar es Salaam 23 October, 1906 Appellant present Respondent present.